Which camera can do this? Is A7s the only option?

stoppingby said:
Thank you very much for the frame grab, it's absolutely impressive that the smaller sensor can do this! The shirt is amazing. Did you use an external recorder?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was very surprised by the image the GH4 can produce when properly tweaked. This is the crappy GH4 internal 4K UHD 8-bit 4:2:2 100 Mbits internal recording, so I imagine using an external recorder at 4K DCI 10-bit 4:2:2 would take things even further. ( and you could switch to a sharper Lumix lens if absolute sharpness is your thing )

stoppingby said:
Also thanks for info about the other cameras - I'll definitely look into the FS7 (I' already looked at the C100, but wasn't really blown away).
Click to expand...

You need to shoot with an external recorder on the C100 to see what it can really do. ( Canon's internal bit rates are kind of low )

stoppingby said:
BUT I still have to say that I've seen nothing, ever, that competes with the Otus/A7s frames I just linked to. Perhaps it's just me, but I'm baffled...
Click to expand...

I honestly think you are being swayed by the studio lighting. I know I could virtually duplicate this shot with my GH4 with an external recorder and a Lumix prime lens.

stoppingby said:
Also, I wasn't aware that the first A7s is a bit better than the second. Seems it would be better to get an A7s+recorder than an A7sii, then.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I would say that it's better ( it doesn't do internal 4K, but then it doesn't overheat when shooting 4K with an external recorder ), but it would be very tempting to get a used A7S Mk1 and then buy an external recorder to go with it. ( and probably pay the same price as a new A7S Mk2 )
 
TheDingo said:
Yeah, I was very surprised by the image the GH4 can produce when properly tweaked. This is the crappy GH4 internal 4K UHD 8-bit 4:2:2 100 Mbits internal recording, so I imagine using an external recorder at 4K DCI 10-bit 4:2:2 would take things even further. ( and you could switch to a sharper Lumix lens if absolute sharpness is your thing )
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info again. Yes, it could be interesting to see what external recordings would be like.

I just happen to have this thing with Panasonic... I already have an AF100a with a set of Lumix lenses, and I know that GH4 is nothing like it but I think I'd still have this 'more-of-the-same' kind of feeling if I bought a GH4. Though it would be more than convenient because of the glass...

And again, about the lighting - honestly I know what you mean, but did you look at that skin in full size? http://i2.wp.com/www.nakedpixel.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/experienta-zeiss-otus-1-485-027.jpg

It's not only on her right side (where the side light accentuates the details), it's on her left side, as well. I truly think it's in a league of its own...
 
stoppingby said:
I already have an AF100a with a set of Lumix lenses
Click to expand...

Panasonic made the AF100 camera low-resolution ( a fairly mushy image without sharpening ) to kill off all moire in the video image ( the Canon 5D Mk3 and Canon 7D Mk2 do exactly the same thing to avoid moire when shooting video ), so I would not judge any Panasonic 4K products based on your AF100 experience. Times have changed and now Panasonic produces high definition 4K cameras that are moire free without having to turn the image into mush.

I am curious to see what next year's GH5 brings to the table. I am hoping for a GH5 with 10-bit 4:2:2 internal recording, because if the features are too much like the GH4 in terms of performance then I might consider skipping the GH5 and adding a Sony A7S Mk2 to my kit.

stoppingby said:
And again, about the lighting - honestly I know what you mean, but did you look at that skin in full size?
Click to expand...

I did, and I think most of this look is due to the woman's makeup and the way she was lit. Having a very sharp lens like the Zeiss OTUS doesn't hurt, but as you can see with the DXOMark lens tests I posted previously, even a $500 Nikon 85mm f/1.8 G lens can pretty much equal this lens when shooting at video resolutions. ( it's a different story when shooting still photos a full aperture, but video is pretty low res in comparison to 30 or 40 Mpx still photos )
 
TheDingo said:
Panasonic made the AF100 camera low-resolution ( a fairly mushy image without sharpening ) to kill off all moire in the video image ( the Canon 5D Mk3 and Canon 7D Mk2 do exactly the same thing to avoid moire when shooting video ), so I would not judge any Panasonic 4K products based on your AF100 experience. Times have changed and now Panasonic produces high definition 4K cameras that are moire free without having to turn the image into mush.

I am curious to see what next year's GH5 brings to the table. I am hoping for a GH5 with 10-bit 4:2:2 internal recording, because if the features are too much like the GH4 in terms of performance then I might consider skipping the GH5 and adding a Sony A7S Mk2 to my kit.
Click to expand...

Again, I know the AF100 doesn't compare to the GH4. So, it's probably more an emotional thing. But still...

About the f/1.8g - that's actually Nikon's sharpest lens, at least at some apertures, so it should compare well. But I know what you're saying, and I would absolutely love to watch a video shoot-out between Otus and 1.8g (or a 'similar' lens).

As for the future: I can wait half a year before buying so yes, perhaps GH5. Or A7sIII. Or - and this is what I'd really love - a Nikon D900, with bells on (= a new Sony sensor)! :)
 
stoppingby said:
and this is what I'd really love - a Nikon D900, with bells on (= a new Sony sensor)! :)
Click to expand...

...I wonder if Nikon's deal with Sony prevents them from producing a DSLR with kick-ass 4K video.

It really seems like Olympus has a deal with Panasonic to not go after the video market, because they are dragging their feet when it comes to producing a camera that can shoot high quality m4/3 video.
 
TheDingo said:
...I wonder if Nikon's deal with Sony prevents them from producing a DSLR with kick-ass 4K video...
Click to expand...
There's (an alleged/supposed/rumored/planned/gossiped) 4K D5 on the way. But a new Pentax FF that was semi-announced recently has the 810 36 MPX sensor and lacks 4K (but it does have a pixel shifting high resolution mode, which might give it around 100 MPX on stills).

PS. Sigma 85mm F/1.4 is probably the best buy for the stills primes whole the new Zeiss Milvus is about half the price of Otus.

PPS. And that Romanian guy surely bounces his light around - off umbrellas and white walls and what not.
 
DLD said:
that Romanian guy surely bounces his light around - off umbrellas and white walls and what not.
Click to expand...

Looks like a pretty basic 3-point setup to me, give or take a light chain, and that doesn't even begin to explain the details in this frame: http://i2.wp.com/www.nakedpixel.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/experienta-zeiss-otus-1-485-027.jpg

But I'm not saying the Otus is responsible. I wouldn't have started this thread if I thought I knew the answer already. Perhaps a Milvus or another nice lens can achieve similar results. I just haven't seen it yet...
 
I've watched a bunch of A7s videos today and there's one thing I don't get:

Most of them remind me of old Polaroid photos or Kodachrome movies, but without the charm. There's this huge contrast between dark and light; black shadows and blown highligts, and everybody seems to wear extremely bright red or blue shirts. :)

In other words, they feel slightly... primitive. Which puzzles me since the camera is supposed to have this huge DR...
 
stoppingby said:
I've watched a bunch of A7s videos today and there's one thing I don't get:

Most of them remind me of old Polaroid photos or Kodachrome movies, but without the charm. There's this huge contrast between dark and light; black shadows and blown highligts, and everybody seems to wear extremely bright red or blue shirts. :)

In other words, they feel slightly... primitive. Which puzzles me since the camera is supposed to have this huge DR...
Click to expand...

OK...take this with a grain of salt because this is only my own subjective opinion...

But I hate the look of the A7s and A7r video. Enough that if humans are in the shot I would prefer to not even do the shoot than to use one of these cameras.
I have NEVER seen anything come from one of these cameras that I could honestly say I liked the look of.
And YES, your take on the colors and contrast is absolutely part of what I see from them as well.

If we're laying bets...my money says that several years from now the A7 cameras get judged as nowhere near living up to the hype.
 
DPStewart said:
I have NEVER seen anything come from one of these cameras that I could honestly say I liked the look of.
Click to expand...

Right... this is going to sound beyond ridiculous after everything I've said today, but I'm not actually sure I like the look of this YouTube frame: http://i2.wp.com/www.nakedpixel.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/experienta-zeiss-otus-1-485-027.jpg

I mean, the details absolutely blow me away, and I keep staring at them, but the feeling... :lipsrseal

So I guess I hope it's possible to add some kind of 'Nikon gorgeousness' or 'substance' in post. But I'm not really sure it can be done.

This is not easy, haha.

How would you spend $8k, or a bit more now? (On video gear, I mean...)
 
If sharpness is what you are after then the sharpest 1080P image you will get will be from a 4K sensor. That being said, I think most of us here have been in your shoes before where we buy into the marketing hype of the sharpest, most dynamic range, and newest camera thinking it's going to do wonders to our work. I'm going to echo the sentiments of others when I say that good lighting can make an iphone look amazing and bad lighting can make a red epic look like garbage. On the other hand, a zeiss otus will never look all that different than the canon nifty fifty under controlled enviornments and the difference between a 5D II and an Arri Alexa is a lot less than we would like to believe all other things being equal. Makeup, lighting, and color contrast can make a big impact on the perceived sharpness of a shot and make it looks like it was shot with an amazing camera.

In regards to your sample, i'm not really seeing the amazing quality or skin tone that you say is there. The way the skin fades from light to dark is called contouring which is more to the credit of the makeup artist than the camera or the lighting. I personally would skip the otus and if all you need the 85mm focal length wait for the Sigma Art to come out in a few months, until then you can rent or buy a cheaper 85mm, maybe the 85 1.8 Canon. Def skip the otus if you plan on using it for stills since it doesn't have autofocus!

In regards to camera, if you are looking to take stills professionally as a commercial, event, sports, wildlife or 95% of other types of photographers, a DSLR is going to be you best bet. I would go with the 5D III or wait to see what's in store for the 5D IV. If still are aren't really that important then you can go with a sony mirrorless (althougth you still might like Canon for skin tones). IF stills don't matter at all then go with the type of camera that your work calls for. If you do events then a DSLR or FS5 is good, if you do interviews in controlled lighting then C300 is great.
 
egproductions said:
If sharpness is what you are after then the sharpest 1080P image you will get will be from a 4K sensor. That being said, I think most of us here have been in your shoes before where we buy into the marketing hype of the sharpest, most dynamic range, and newest camera thinking it's going to do wonders to our work. I'm going to echo the sentiments of others when I say that good lighting can make an iphone look amazing and bad lighting can make a red epic look like garbage. On the other hand, a zeiss otus will never look all that different than the canon nifty fifty under controlled enviornments and the difference between a 5D II and an Arri Alexa is a lot less than we would like to believe all other things being equal. Makeup, lighting, and color contrast can make a big impact on the perceived sharpness of a shot and make it looks like it was shot with an amazing camera.
Click to expand...

Wow... Otus lenses are really not that special, iPhones footage can in fact look amazing and Alexa is actually not out of this friggin' world compared to a - wait for it - 5Dii.

And then there's this constantly repeated, yet entirely unsubstantiated claim that the right light somehow can create the level of detail you definitely should be able to see in this frame: http://i2.wp.com/www.nakedpixel.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/experienta-zeiss-otus-1-485-027.jpg

Here's a suggestion: Why don't you come back with some kind of documentation? I can't begin to tell you how much I would love to see a DSLR achieve the crispness in the frame above or survive in a test against Alexa.

egproductions said:
IThe way the skin fades from light to dark is called contouring which is more to the credit of the makeup artist than the camera or the lighting.
Click to expand...
Oh, my god...
 
stoppingby said:
Here's a suggestion: Why don't you come back with some kind of documentation? I can't begin to tell you how much I would love to see a DSLR achieve the crispness in the frame above or survive in a test against Alexa..
Click to expand...

Many of us regularly shoot and cut Alexa footage with footage from what you would consider substandard cameras. And nobody can tell the difference. Our little commercials aside, they even do it in very expensive movies. It's a matter of choosing the right tool for the job at hand. Sometimes the right tool is a GoPro, other times it's an F65. Your job is to know which tool is right for each job. There is no one camera to rule them all.
 
We are all in denial to an extent about our equipment and why we have to use A over B. Watch this. All these very experienced DP's are hard pressed to choose which cameras looked best, ranging from the Arri Alexa to an iphone4s. Yes they were able to see which cameras looked worse but most people wouldn't even notice a difference and if you were just watching it as a film, you wouldn't be worried about any of that pixel peeping stuff.

https://vimeo.com/45757783

stoppingby said:
There's nothing special about the lighting, it's just a gear question - and this is a gear forum, yes? :)
Click to expand...

You say this is a gear forum but this forum was actually started to show that a prosumer camera had the capacity to achieve incredible results and that after a certain point, it's not the specs of equipment that is stopping us from creating successful work. Granted people might question the sharpness by today's standards but a little film called "28 days later" was shot on the DVX100 and grossed 83 million. Most DPs were shooting film at the time and had much sharper images witha lot more dynamic range. The average viewer didn't notice the difference.

The otus is a no compromises lens..sorta. Yes it's better quality than pretty much anything out there (although there are plenty of cine lenses that could hold their own) but is the price tag worth it for the small benefit your getting? Also consider that the otus lenses aren't really made for film sets. Cine lenses that are made for video production enviorments offer a lot that the otus lenses do not.

My thought is that if you have nowhere else to spend money (i.e. lighting, support, crew, makeup, etc.) and the otus is still in budget, then go for it. Otherwise, spend your money elsewhere.
 
David W. Jones said:
Many of us regularly shoot and cut Alexa footage with footage from what you would consider substandard cameras. And nobody can tell the difference.
Click to expand...

Shoot a full TV show on a D800, and see what happens... :)

But shoot a scene on a D800 once in a while for effect or convenience and use Alexa for the rest, and people will love it.

That's what happened on Dexter, and that's the way to do it.
 
egproductions said:
We are all in denial to an extent about our equipment and why we have to use A over B. Watch this. All these very experienced DP's are hard pressed to choose which cameras looked best, ranging from the Arri Alexa to an iphone4s. Yes they were able to see which cameras looked worse but most people wouldn't even notice a difference and if you were just watching it as a film, you wouldn't be worried about any of that pixel peeping stuff.
Click to expand...

Sorry to repeat myself, but like I said to David W. Jones a moment ago: Shoot a full TV show on a D800 and see what happens.

egproductions said:
You say this is a gear forum but this forum was actually started to show that a prosumer camera had the capacity to achieve incredible results
Click to expand...

That's a really great reason to start a forum. I love the way that everybody can create and publish videos and music now.

And every once in a while somebody's going to make it with bad equipment. You mentioned 28 Days Later, just like musicians like to mention Springsteen's Nebraska.

But here's the thing: We know and love these stories because they're exceptions and because, "wow, I can do that!" Take a look at this DSLR Feature Film List, however, if you're ready for a reality check: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?198927-DSLR-Feature-Film-List

egproductions said:
The otus is a no compromises lens..sorta. Yes it's better quality than pretty much anything out there (although there are plenty of cine lenses that could hold their own) but is the price tag worth it for the small benefit your getting?
Click to expand...

Well, that's one of the questions I'm asking in this thread. But it's not the reason I started it:

I found what I still believe is a unique YouTube video that actually proves your point, "that a prosumer camera had the capacity to achieve incredible results."

So I tried to figure out which, if any, of the three gear components - A7s, Otus, Atomos - were more responsible for that result.

And this is indeed a gear forum, so I think it's fair to look into that question instead of turning it into a discussion about the basics of 3-point lighting, or something like that.

Again, no amount of elaborate lighting - or makeup, for that matter :) - will ever make it possible for a video camera to reproduce the details in this frame: http://i2.wp.com/www.nakedpixel.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/experienta-zeiss-otus-1-485-027.jpg
 
Last edited:
stoppingby said:
Wow... Otus lenses are really not that special
Click to expand...

Not for video work, as we are only dealing with an 8 Mpx image when we shoot 4K video. As I posted previously with the DXOMark link, when measured with a 12 Mpx Nikon D3 camera the OTUS lens does NOT outperform a $500 Nikon 85mm f/1.8 G lens. So yes, nothing special with the OTUS lens when used for these lower resolution images.
 
stoppingby said:
There's nothing special about the lighting, it's just a gear question - and this is a gear forum, yes? :)
Click to expand...

...You go against 100 years of cinematography when you say "there's nothing special about the lighting". Cinematography is ALL about the lighting.

Consider the Apple iPhone ads that made the video shot with the iPhone look like a million bucks, and it was ALL because of the lighting used to shoot those ads with the iPhone.

I really think you are making a HUGE mistake by writing off the lighting and obsessing about these Zeiss OTUS lenses which are really designed for high resolution still photography. ( i.e. 36 - 50 Mpx imaging )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top